RICHMOND, Calif. – Residents in Richmond and Pittsburg, California, two outlying cities in the San Francisco Bay Area, are determined to have their voices heard regarding what is transported through their communities. And crude oil from fracking and tar sands are two of the items they don't want traversing their streets or railways.

On March 1 in Richmond, activists and other concerned citizens came together in the latest move to urge community leaders and government officials to say no to Big Oil and bar them from moving the toxic chemicals in and around their homes and families.

While the meeting was more of a workshop that educated residents on the dangerous transport of crude and other oil-based products, it was an eye-opening experience for many, who, before attending, were largely unaware of the pitfalls of such movements.

"I can't believe that the government would allow such dangerous products to be transported so close to our schools and our community. I am in shock," said Sarah, a 32-year-old mother of three and teacher from Richmond. "We need to speak out and have our voices heard."

That may be easier said than done, however, with California governor Jerry Brown angling to pass new legislation that would approve fracking and its transportation to refineries across the state. That means Richmond could face the brunt of such transport.

At the heart of the problem for residents, experts and others alike is the WesPac Energy-Pittsburg LLC, which is proposing "to modernize and reactivate the existing marine terminal, oil storage and transfer facilities at the NRG Pittsburg Generating Station. The marine terminal, storage tanks, and all of the existing equipment will be replaced, upgraded or repaired."

That is not good news for residents on the East Bay, where WesPac aims to develop and construct "a new rail car transload facility in an existing rail yard owned by BNSF Railway Company."

In addition to this, two new underground pipelines are being planned that would connect the existing KLM Pipeline with the two planned ones, bringing fear to those who oppose the project.

In both Pittsburg and Richmond, efforts have been underway for months to demand oversight and new solutions to the transport issue, which reports suggest will see some 242,000 barrels of crude or partially refined crude oil to be unloaded daily and stored in 16 tanks used decades ago by Pacific Gas and Electric.

Calls to PG&E regarding the status of those tanks was not returned.

Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin of the Green Party is known for her environmental awareness and has been a leading figure in the battle for greater environmental protection for her residents. At the working group on March 1, she said, "This is an important battle for the safety and security of our community." She added that there are "no guarantees" that the storage tanks and the transport systems would maintain acceptable safety measures for the area, and she fears that without adequate resources from governments established, it could lead to major concerns over health and environmental protection.

In Pittsburg, there is also a sense of urgency facing the area, with health and public safety at the forefront.

"The city staff is putting public safety first. We hear you - you are not being ignored," city councilman Pete Longmire said after Joe Sbranti, the city manager, announced that a letter outlining the city's position was sent to WesPac officials late last month.

While government officials in both cities say WesPac has a legal right to have local governments consider their project, communities should be the ones who decide how and what goes through.

"We have a process we are following ... We are listening to the community first, but everyone deserves a fair hearing," said Mayor Sal Evola when reopening public scrutiny of the proposed crude transportation through the city.

WesPac has been on the offensive since small demonstrations against their project erupted earlier this year, saying that the pipelines and transport rails would boost production of crude oil for the state when oil fields are declining, and that fracking would be an "immediate solution" to California's dwindling oil reserves. They also argue that it would deliver revenue to local governments, including Richmond and Pittsburg, as well as more than 300 new jobs for the area. They did not provide specific details on the amount of revenue they could expect.

Opponents, however, have cited the health and environmental issues and concerns that inevitably would come to the East Bay, including a reduction in air quality and increasing the potential for oil spills, fires and seepage into water systems. Residents in Richmond who attended the working group on March 1 tended to fall into the opponent's base, even those who previously believed that the idea was a positive for the communities.

"I was a big believer in this project," said John Brekman, a construction worker who previously thought it could help boost work opportunities for the stalling building sector, "but now that I listened to the mayor and others, it seems really like a bad idea that would only hurt our community. I just hope that others are listening and understand what is happening here."

For these two small communities, crude transport is a tough sell, but one WesPac hopes it can avoid by going to those who make the legislative decisions.

"I think we have to look at where the money is going: who is getting what and which elected official is being bankrolled by big oil," said one top Richmond official who asked not to be named. "This is serious, and part of a nationwide problem we are facing in this country, where health and the environment are finding it hard to match up against the corporations with money."

On March 15, residents in the East Bay are holding another demonstration as part of the 350.org's efforts to continue to put pressure on local governments to say no to fracking, crude transport through communities and the threats facing the state from big oil.

habitat_fracking_8-8-1024x637.jpg